[repost] 10 Gay Lessons from The Golden Girls

This came through the Huffington Post yesterday and given the central role The Golden Girls have played in my life … it is just brilliant. Here is the full text of the article but I’ve included just the first bits below:

Here are 10 gay lessons from The Golden Girls:

10. Have integrity.
9. Tell the truth.
8. Never be ashamed.
7. Don’t let anyone bully you.
6. There is nothing wrong with being different.
5. Don’t let anything hold you back.
4. Always be yourself.
3. Don’t be a bitch.
2. Share your stories.
1. Make your own family.

Summer ’13: All about the body

Without much conscious reflection, this term has turned into a full-blown embrace of the body via phenomenology.

I’m doing a Directed Readings with Stephen Smith on phenomenology and phenomenological research methods. My reading list includes all the biggies (Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty).

I’m also taking “Embodiment and Curriculum Inquiry” with Celeste Snowber. See the course outline.

In short, it’s all about the body!

Roundtable at UBC’s IOP Conference this Saturday (May 11)

Investigating Our Practices 2013
IOP’s 16th Annual Conference
Saturday, May 11, 2013 — 8:30am – 1:30pm
Neville Scarfe Building, UBC
pdce.educ.ubc.ca/iop2013

Program Summary [ PDF ]

List of Sessions [ PDF ]

Presentations [ PDF ]

Mine (Speaking the Being of Teaching) is during Session A, 9:00 – 9:40, in Room 203.

Here’s the blurb: In this roundtable, we will explore the spaces where who we are as teachers and learners occurs. Teaching is dominated by knowing; we speak of knowing things, dates, names, and facts. As teachers we deal in knowledge: knowing is a criteria for advancement, a critical factor in deciding who is smart, who is right, who has power. Surely knowing is helpful. But to move forward, to truly think differently, we need to consider questions regarding the being of teaching. We have become addicted to knowing. We are complacent in our knowing; once we know something — we are content. “I already know that.”

This roundtable is about being, not knowing. What might be possible in educating were being brought into the
conversation? Not to supplant knowing, but to complement. For example: Who am I being such that teaching and
learning is possible? Who am I being such that this lesson flopped? Questions of being change the game of teaching. They rewrite the rules, invent new rules. In our brief discussion we will speak the being of teaching to remind us of just how much of a say we have in teaching, learning, our relationships, and our lives.

A Plea for Pedagogy

I sent off this piece of writing (and have yet to hear back with feedback/reviewer comments!) but figured I’d go ahead and share out the first section.

A Plea for Pedagogy
Matthew J. Kruger-Ross
matthewkrugerross@gmail.com

It goes without saying that technology is changing education. Children’s brains are being rewired, universities are being threatened with extinction, and we will be in serious trouble if we ignore the transformative power of new technologies. We live in an information/knowledge economy where we are constantly connected to networks of information, our experiences become more and more mediated. While I can meet virtually face-to-face with colleagues on the east coast, children’s attention spans decrease and their ability to think beyond the first few entries of a Google search are beyond alarming. I can access the work of any scholarly journal imaginable, but university and public libraries come closer and closer to financial ruin from the same journals’ subscription fees and access rights. It seems that technology changes everything in life, including educating.

Or does it? Over the past few years I have read extensively in the field of educational technology as well as taught and led training/professional development sessions for K-16 teachers interested in integrating technologies into their classrooms (face-to-face or otherwise). I have, unfortunately, been one to raise the banner of new technologies and their ability to transform teaching and learning. However, it occurred to me recently that much of the hype surrounding the influence of technology on educating were due more to pedagogical principles rather than some inherent feature of the technology in question. In this essay I select and discuss a four approaches* to educating that focus on the use of technology. In these approaches, it is assumed that technology provides some sort of innovation, a way of doing and thinking about teaching and learning that did not exist before the entrance of the technology. Therefore, it is the technology that has transformed the teaching and learning.

Or is it?** In the same way that Egan (1997; 2005) sketches out the three irreducible aims of education, it seems to me that so-called innovations attributed to technology are mostly pedagogical strategies cloaked in digital media. This may be a growing realization in the field of educational technology***, but this is yet to be fully realized. The question at the heart of this analysis is Are approaches to educational technology truly innovational or transformational? And, if they are not, as I suppose, what is the foundation of the approaches? These questions do not rule out the possibility of the ability of technology to transform human experience, understanding, and so on. However, they do attempt to reverse much of the rhetoric surrounding the influences of technology as they are currently understood and experienced while leaving space for the potential of truly interesting and innovative pedagogical strategies that might be enhanced via communication technologies. To begin, a quick overview of the field is helpful.


* The term “approaches” I am using liberally; some practitioners would prefer their perspective of choice to be labeled a program, theory, or framework. This in itself is interesting, but must be saved for a later date.

** This is difficult to describe, but I am officially rejecting much of the field of educational technology. Other than my own ineptitude, the difficulty you may encounter in reading may be due to my attempts to work within a language I learned in my instructional technology Masters program, while still trying to connect these ideas and concepts so that they might be understandable by educators outside of the field. So while to someone unfamiliar with the ongoing work in the field of educational technology my argument may not be fully effective, I think it important to note that most of my peers would consider these ideas to be heresy.

*** I say a “growing trend” with a great deal of wishful thinking. While attending a forum on MOOCs a few weeks ago, Alyssa Wise (SFU Faculty of Education) reflected that scholars of educational technology are finally beginning to realize that, for the most part, new and innovative technologies – regardless of their inherent and apparent innovativeness – recapitulate teaching and learning approaches that human beings have been aware of for quite a long time.

Upcoming symposium: Embodiment, Mindfulness: Contemplative Perspectives and Approaches to Education

May 2013 Flyer

Open the PDF

Upcoming symposium: Embodiment, Mindfulness: Contemplative Perspectives and Approaches to Education (see flyer above).

DATE: MAY 16TH, 2013
TIME: 3 PM TO 6:30 PM
LOCATION: SFU DOWNTOWM CAMPUS, ROOM 2945

The keynote by Professor Deborah Orr (York University) is sponsored by our Faculty Lecture Series. Please see the program linked above for the details. Also attached is the ABSTRACT for Professor Orr’s talk.

Space is limited. If you are interested in attending, register right away. The registration ends on April 26.

There are two kinds of registration available to you:

REGISTRATION ONE: the WHOLE SYMPOSIUM, from 3 pm to 6:30 pm.

REGISTRATION TWO: just the FACULTY LECTURE (Prof. Orr’s Keynote), from 5 pm to 6:30 pm.

When you register, please specify which one you are choosing.

To register, please visit

http://www.doodle.com/gq3ywqdqr392vqhm

We look forward to seeing you at the May Symposium!

Next round of books I’ve had to let go

I am obsessed with books, and they’ve yet to turn me away when I go to get more. But, every once in awhile I have to let some go… they’re just not in the cards for right now. Here’s the latest batch:

Anatomy of Revolution by Crane Brinton

Embodied Prayer by Celeste Snowber

The Alluring Problem by D. J. Enright

The Sociology of Education in Canada by Terry Wotherspoon

Truth & Truthfulness by Bernard Williams

Upcoming presentation at UBC’s Investigating Our Practices: Speaking the Being of Teaching

I just realized I didn’t even have this on MY calendar, so I figure it might be best to blast it out into the ether.

Conference Title: Investigating Our Practices 2013
Conference Website: http://pdce.educ.ubc.ca/summer-institute-investigating-our-practices-iop2013/

Date: May 11, 2013
Location: UBC Vancouver Campus

My working title is: Speaking the Being of Teaching

Description: In this roundtable we will explore the spaces where who we are as teachers and learners  occurs. Teaching is dominated by knowing; we speak of knowing things, dates, names, and facts. As teachers we deal in knowledge: knowing is a criteria for advancement, a critical factor in deciding who is smart, who is right, who has power. Surely knowing is helpful. But to move forward, to truly think differently, we need to consider questions regarding the being of teaching. We have become addicted to knowing. We are complacent in our knowing; once we know something — we are content. “I already know that.” This roundtable is about being, not knowing. What might be possible in educating were being brought into the conversation? Not to supplant knowing, but to complement. For example: Who am I being such that teaching and learning is possible? Who am I being such that this lesson flopped? Questions of being change the game of teaching. They rewrite the rules, invent new rules. In our brief discussion we will speak the being of teaching to remind us of just how much of a say we have in teaching, learning, our relationships, and our lives.

 

 

EDUC 902: Skeptically unconvinced

A final reflection on my write up for EDUC 902. For more information, see this linked post.

Skeptically unconvinced

As we come to the end of this seminar and our time together, I find myself more skeptical than ever. My final write up for this term presents an argument similar to the one I attempted to communicate last week. Claims of technology transforming how we teach and how students learn consistently stretch, bend, and twist what actually happens in classrooms (face-to-face or online). Student attention spans are decreasing because they are always connected to mobile devices that are rewiring their brains and keeping them from having meaningful relationships. We are connected to an infinite source of information via the Internet, but students (and teachers, administrators, parents) refuse to search beyond the first few results shared on Google. What are we to do?

At least within education, I argue that we need to pull apart pedagogy from technology; collapsing them tends to muddy the waters. The separation process will lead to a renewed focus on pedagogy, followed by a deep understanding of the social construction of technology. Approaching the teaching and learning space anew, the first question we will ask is not what technology to use but rather what is to be taught and in what ways are we to teach. We need not look to technology to revise our pedagogy, but to ourselves.

I was unable to weave the theory of instrumentalization into our discussion last week as it relates to how we understand and think about technologies. Briefly, there are two levels of instrumentalization: primary and secondary. These distinctions are analytical, conceptual devices to aid in our thinking. The primary instrumentalization of a technology is its function, what the technology helps us do with it. The secondary instrumentalization is the socially negotiated and contingent meaning attached to the technology. Where we err is when we collapse the two, assume that function equals meaning, and forget that they were ever separate. I see a similar phenomenon occurring with technology and pedagogy.

Educational technologists have for decades attempted to sketch theoretical and philosophical frameworks to provide structure for their ideas on how best to efficiently and effectively integrate technology into teaching and learning. However, on the whole, these approaches neglect pedagogical strategies and concerns that are part of the being of teaching. Pedagogy is rendered transparent, commonsensical and therefore unworthy of reflection and analysis. This results in theories, programs, and activities claim to be innovative but are nothing more than faulty pedagogy with fancy new names. This languaging is similar to using computer terminology when communicating about understanding or learning. Metaphors that bridge the computer to the human mind must be carefully considered if we are to use them, for they are at best inaccurate and at worst incredibly misleading.

Yet, in cases where technologies can support the development of individual and societal potentialities then these must be explored and exploited. The child who finds his voice via an iPad App who was previously unable to communicate, the Accessibility Features developed to make computing available to persons with limited sight, truly meaning online collaboration – these are obviously avenues that we should continue to seek out. At the same time, we must remember just how much say we have in the matter of how technologies occur in our lives and how they shape and mediate our actions and intentions. As educators, we need to be careful to think and speak about teaching and learning with technologies such that our students will also be able to critically evaluate the ways technologies are integrated into their lives.

Thus, while I am at present focused on pausing to pull pedagogy and technology apart, I remain skeptically unconvinced that we’ve yet to fully grasp the relationship between the two.

Matthew Kruger-Ross, EDUC 902 / Tues April 2, 2013

Update: A free public debate between Jodi Dean (HWSC) and Andrew Feenberg (SFU)

I shared about this upcoming debate a few days ago along with a poster describing it, but finally received the “official” notice pasted below:

The CounterCulture Speaker Series Presents:
Revolutionary Horizons? Debating the Democratic Potential of the Internet

/// Overview ///
A free public debate between Jodi Dean (HWSC) and Andrew Feenberg (SFU).

The effect of the Internet and social media tools upon recent global uprisings has received much attention. Popular claims that such digital environments are revolutionary tools for social change have been countered by charges of ‘slacktivism’ and critiques that draw attention to the entanglement between the Internet and neoliberal capital. Critical theorists Jodi Dean and Andrew Feenberg have developing highly compelling but distinct perspectives on this question of the relationships between networked technology, political life, and social movements. This event will bring these two esteemed scholars together to debate how we can best understand the role of the internet in shaping the possibilities and limitations of collective action today.

Organized as a part of the CounterCulture Speaker Series run by the Media Democracy Project, School of Communication and the SFU Institute for the Humanities.

/// Event Details ///
What: Revolutionary Horizons? Debating the Democratic Potential of the Internet
Date: Friday, April 12th, 2013
Time: 7:00PM
Cost: Free Attendance
Venue: Fletcher Challenge Theatre (Room #1900), SFU Vancouver (515 W. Hastings St.)

Info: www.mediademocracydays.org
RSVP: http://revolutionaryhorizons.eventbrite.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/events/491281654259341/
Twitter: @MediaDemocDay

/// Programme ///

The Debate: Jodi Dean & Andrew Feenberg
Each debater will have 15 minutes to present their arguments. Each debater will then have 10 minutes to respond to their counterpart’s arguments. The moderator will then ask a few questions to both debaters (roughly 10 minutes). Finally, the audience will be invited to ask questions.

Moderated by Professor Samir Gandesha

Samir Gandesha is Associate Professor in the Department of Humanities and the Director of the Institute for the Humanities at SFU. He specializes in modern European thought and culture and is editor (with Lars Rensmann) of Arendt and Adorno: Philosophical and Political Questions (Stanford, 2012). He is currently finishing a book entitled “Homeless Philosophy” and editing a volume (with Johan Hartle) on “Marx and the Aesthetic”. His work has been published in New German Critique, Philosophy and Social Criticism, Thesis Eleven, the European Journal of Social Theory, Political Theory, The Cambridge Companion to Adorno and several other edited collections.

/// Speaker Bios ///

Jodi Dean is Professor of Political Science at Hobart and William Smith Colleges where she teaches political theory, and Erasmus Professor of the Humanities in the Faculty of Philosophy at Erasmus University. Dr. Dean’s research and writing focus on the contemporary space and possibility of politics. Books include: Solidarity of Strangers (1996), Aliens in America (1998), Publicity’s Secret (2002), Zizek’s Politics (2006), Democracy and Other Neoliberal Fantasies (2009), Blog Theory: Feedback and Capture in the Circuits of Drive (2010) and most recently The Communist Horizon (2012). Dr. Dean has also edited several books including Reformatting Politics: Information Technology and Global Civil Society (2006).

Andrew Feenberg is Canada Research Chair in Philosophy of Technology in the School of Communication, Simon Fraser University, where he directs the Applied Communication and Technology Lab. Dr. Feenberg is the author of several books including Critical Theory of Technology (1991), Alternative Modernity (1995), and Questioning Technology (1999). Heidegger and Marcuse: The Catastrophe and Redemption of History appeared in 2005 while Between Reason and Experience: Essays in Technology and Modernity appeared in 2010. Dr. Feenberg has also co-edited several volumes including (Re)inventing the Internet (2012). In addition to his work on critical theory and philosophy of technology, Dr. Feenberg is also recognized as an early innovator in the field of online education, a field he helped to create in 1982.